Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 391	control, N = 191	treatment, N = 201	p-value2
age	39	50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72)	49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72)	50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72)	0.696
gender	39				0.257
f		26 (67%)	11 (58%)	15 (75%)
m		13 (33%)	8 (42%)	5 (25%)
occupation	39				0.946
full_time		5 (13%)	3 (16%)	2 (10%)
homemaker		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
other		2 (5.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (10%)
part_time		6 (15%)	4 (21%)	2 (10%)
retired		11 (28%)	5 (26%)	6 (30%)
self_employ		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
t_and_e		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
unemploy		9 (23%)	4 (21%)	5 (25%)
marital	39				>0.999
divore		5 (13%)	3 (16%)	2 (10%)
married		7 (18%)	3 (16%)	4 (20%)
none		21 (54%)	10 (53%)	11 (55%)
seperation		3 (7.7%)	2 (11%)	1 (5.0%)
widow		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
edu	39				0.479
bachelor		12 (31%)	5 (26%)	7 (35%)
diploma		7 (18%)	5 (26%)	2 (10%)
hd_ad		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
postgraduate		4 (10%)	2 (11%)	2 (10%)
primary		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
secondary_1_3		2 (5.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (10%)
secondary_4_5		8 (21%)	5 (26%)	3 (15%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (5.0%)
fam_income	39				0.863
10001_12000		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
12001_14000		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
16001_18000		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
18001_20000		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		7 (18%)	5 (26%)	2 (10%)
2001_4000		5 (13%)	2 (11%)	3 (15%)
4001_6000		6 (15%)	3 (16%)	3 (15%)
6001_8000		3 (7.7%)	2 (11%)	1 (5.0%)
8001_10000		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
below_2000		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
medication	39	34 (87%)	16 (84%)	18 (90%)	0.661
onset_duration	39	16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56)	17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56)	15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35)	0.616
onset_age	39	33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62)	31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55)	35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62)	0.360
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 391	control, N = 191	treatment, N = 201	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	39	3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)	0.845
recovery_stage_b	39	18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)	18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23)	18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23)	0.800
ras_confidence	39	31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40)	31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40)	31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39)	0.705
ras_willingness	39	12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)	12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15)	12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15)	0.572
ras_goal	39	17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)	18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23)	17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24)	0.716
ras_reliance	39	13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20)	13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18)	13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20)	0.940
ras_domination	39	10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15)	11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)	9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14)	0.039
symptom	39	29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56)	28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45)	30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56)	0.513
slof_work	39	23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)	24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30)	22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30)	0.332
slof_relationship	39	26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35)	27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35)	25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35)	0.285
satisfaction	39	21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30)	20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29)	22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30)	0.327
mhc_emotional	39	11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18)	11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17)	12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18)	0.465
mhc_social	39	15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25)	15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25)	14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23)	0.601
mhc_psychological	39	23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)	22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33)	23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)	0.651
resilisnce	39	17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)	17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24)	17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25)	0.928
social_provision	39	13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20)	13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19)	0.932
els_value_living	39	17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23)	17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20)	17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23)	0.810
els_life_fulfill	39	13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)	12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17)	13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18)	0.227
els	39	30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40)	29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36)	31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40)	0.400
social_connect	39	26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48)	26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45)	26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48)	0.860
shs_agency	39	14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20)	14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20)	14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20)	0.960
shs_pathway	39	16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22)	16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21)	17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22)	0.637
shs	39	31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)	31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41)	31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42)	0.799
esteem	39	12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15)	12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14)	12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)	0.240
mlq_search	39	15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21)	15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21)	15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)	0.605
mlq_presence	39	13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21)	14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19)	13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21)	0.178
mlq	39	29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41)	30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40)	28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41)	0.277
empower	39	20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)	20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24)	19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28)	0.502
ismi_resistance	39	15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)	15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19)	15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20)	0.866
ismi_discrimation	39	11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)	12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17)	10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)	0.089
sss_affective	39	9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18)	9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15)	9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18)	0.624
sss_behavior	39	9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18)	10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)	8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18)	0.354
sss_cognitive	39	7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)	7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15)	8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18)	0.592
sss	39	27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54)	27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44)	26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54)	0.734
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.58	0.277	3.04, 4.12
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.079	0.387	-0.837, 0.680	0.839
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.142	0.462	-0.763, 1.05	0.768
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.581	0.703	-0.798, 1.96	0.438
	Pseudo R square	0.021
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.5	0.632	17.3, 19.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.226	0.882	-1.96, 1.50	0.799
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.601	0.606	-1.79, 0.587	0.366
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.47	0.925	-0.340, 3.29	0.171
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	31.0	1.020	29.0, 33.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.550	1.425	-2.24, 3.34	0.702
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.190	1.061	-2.27, 1.89	0.865
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.802	1.619	-2.37, 3.98	0.641
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.5	0.464	11.6, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.376	0.648	-1.65, 0.894	0.565
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.849	0.597	-2.02, 0.320	0.209
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.593	0.910	-1.19, 2.38	0.541
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_goal	(Intercept)	18.1	0.684	16.8, 19.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.355	0.955	-2.23, 1.52	0.712
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.309	0.647	-1.58, 0.959	0.651
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.464	0.987	-1.47, 2.40	0.656
	Pseudo R square	0.003
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.4	0.744	12.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.079	1.039	-1.96, 2.12	0.940
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.027	0.643	-1.23, 1.29	0.968
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.762	0.981	-1.16, 2.68	0.469
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.1	0.553	10.0, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.66	0.773	-3.17, -0.141	0.038
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.85	1.036	-3.88, 0.180	0.109
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.54	1.574	0.458, 6.63	0.051
	Pseudo R square	0.112
symptom	(Intercept)	28.5	2.461	23.7, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	3.437	-4.46, 9.01	0.512
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-2.80	1.633	-6.00, 0.403	0.147
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.81	2.493	-1.08, 8.69	0.186
	Pseudo R square	0.024
slof_work	(Intercept)	24.1	1.157	21.8, 26.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.60	1.615	-4.77, 1.56	0.328
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.71	0.877	-3.42, 0.011	0.109
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.59	1.338	-1.03, 4.22	0.287
	Pseudo R square	0.025
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.8	1.296	25.3, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.99	1.809	-5.54, 1.55	0.278
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-3.37	1.202	-5.72, -1.01	0.036
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	4.87	1.835	1.28, 8.47	0.043
	Pseudo R square	0.040
satisfaction	(Intercept)	20.5	1.604	17.3, 23.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.23	2.240	-2.16, 6.62	0.327
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.01	1.568	-0.058, 6.09	0.112
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.862	2.393	-5.55, 3.83	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.038
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.4	0.782	9.89, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.829	1.092	-1.31, 2.97	0.452
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.11	1.867	-2.55, 4.77	0.572
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.88	2.813	-3.63, 7.39	0.521
	Pseudo R square	0.070
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.7	1.230	13.3, 18.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.834	1.718	-4.20, 2.53	0.630
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.38	2.437	-1.39, 8.16	0.184
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-4.48	3.702	-11.7, 2.78	0.243
	Pseudo R square	0.051
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	22.6	1.354	20.0, 25.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.868	1.891	-2.84, 4.57	0.648
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.74	3.090	-4.31, 7.80	0.581
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.21	4.671	-11.4, 6.95	0.643
	Pseudo R square	0.009
resilisnce	(Intercept)	17.2	1.109	15.0, 19.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.142	1.548	-2.89, 3.18	0.927
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.314	0.926	-1.50, 2.13	0.748
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.78	1.413	-5.55, -0.006	0.105
	Pseudo R square	0.016
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.8	0.737	12.3, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.089	1.030	-2.11, 1.93	0.931
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.197	0.609	-1.39, 0.996	0.759
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.936	0.930	-0.887, 2.76	0.360
	Pseudo R square	0.003
els_value_living	(Intercept)	17.3	0.700	15.9, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.237	0.977	-1.68, 2.15	0.810
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.232	0.412	-1.04, 0.575	0.597
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.058	0.628	-1.29, 1.17	0.930
	Pseudo R square	0.003
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.6	0.764	11.1, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.32	1.067	-0.771, 3.41	0.224
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.739	0.865	-0.957, 2.43	0.432
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.439	1.320	-3.03, 2.15	0.753
	Pseudo R square	0.038
els	(Intercept)	29.8	1.309	27.3, 32.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.56	1.828	-2.03, 5.14	0.400
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.408	1.076	-1.70, 2.52	0.720
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.502	1.642	-3.72, 2.72	0.772
	Pseudo R square	0.017
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.0	2.417	21.3, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.600	3.375	-6.01, 7.21	0.860
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	4.52	1.362	1.85, 7.19	0.020
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.87	2.079	-2.21, 5.94	0.410
	Pseudo R square	0.035
shs_agency	(Intercept)	14.4	1.105	12.3, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.079	1.543	-2.95, 3.10	0.959
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.53	0.827	0.915, 4.16	0.028
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.97	1.262	-4.44, 0.503	0.179
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.6	0.844	15.0, 18.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.568	1.179	-1.74, 2.88	0.632
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.970	-0.883, 2.92	0.343
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.271	1.479	-3.17, 2.63	0.862
	Pseudo R square	0.012
shs	(Intercept)	31.1	1.804	27.5, 34.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.647	2.520	-4.29, 5.59	0.799
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.52	0.885	1.78, 5.25	0.011
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.68	1.352	-5.33, -0.032	0.104
	Pseudo R square	0.015
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.260	12.3, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.442	0.364	-1.15, 0.271	0.231
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.215	0.600	-0.962, 1.39	0.729
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.160	0.907	-1.94, 1.62	0.864
	Pseudo R square	0.045
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.8	0.738	14.3, 17.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.539	1.030	-2.56, 1.48	0.604
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.240	1.108	-1.93, 2.41	0.837
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.470	1.688	-2.84, 3.78	0.791
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.8	0.905	13.0, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.74	1.263	-4.22, 0.737	0.177
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.158	0.755	-1.64, 1.32	0.842
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.21	1.153	-3.47, 1.05	0.342
	Pseudo R square	0.062
mlq	(Intercept)	30.6	1.476	27.7, 33.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.28	2.061	-6.32, 1.76	0.276
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.180	1.729	-3.21, 3.57	0.921
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.688	2.637	-5.86, 4.48	0.804
	Pseudo R square	0.034
empower	(Intercept)	20.7	0.979	18.8, 22.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.937	1.368	-3.62, 1.74	0.498
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.422	0.741	-1.87, 1.03	0.594
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.463	1.131	-2.68, 1.75	0.699
	Pseudo R square	0.016
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.2	0.637	13.9, 16.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.158	0.889	-1.90, 1.58	0.860
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.932	1.277	-3.43, 1.57	0.502
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.49	1.939	-2.31, 5.29	0.478
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.1	0.718	10.7, 13.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.81	1.003	-3.77, 0.160	0.080
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.04	1.294	-3.58, 1.49	0.469
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.12	1.969	-2.74, 4.98	0.602
	Pseudo R square	0.071
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.84	0.997	7.89, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.692	1.393	-3.42, 2.04	0.622
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.036	0.822	-1.65, 1.57	0.967
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.652	1.254	-3.11, 1.81	0.626
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.3	1.035	8.29, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.445	-4.20, 1.47	0.351
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.559	0.881	-2.28, 1.17	0.554
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.086	1.344	-2.72, 2.55	0.952
	Pseudo R square	0.025
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.58	0.949	5.72, 9.44
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.721	1.326	-1.88, 3.32	0.590
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.49	1.402	-0.257, 5.24	0.138
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.91	2.136	-8.10, 0.272	0.128
	Pseudo R square	0.033
sss	(Intercept)	27.7	2.787	22.3, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.34	3.892	-8.96, 6.29	0.733
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.65	2.524	-3.30, 6.60	0.543
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-4.03	3.853	-11.6, 3.52	0.343
	Pseudo R square	0.010
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.04, 4.12], t(40) = 12.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(40) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.05], t(40) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.96], t(40) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.76], t(40) = 29.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.59], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.29], t(40) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.23])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [29.00, 33.00], t(40) = 30.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.24, 3.34], t(40) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.89], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.98], t(40) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(40) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.89], t(40) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.32], t(40) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.38], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.19])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.76, 19.45], t(40) = 26.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.52], t(40) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.96], t(40) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.40], t(40) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.88], t(40) = 18.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.12], t(40) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.29], t(40) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 8.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.68], t(40) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.83])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.02, 12.19], t(40) = 20.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.14], t(40) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-3.88, 0.18], t(40) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.54, 95% CI [0.46, 6.63], t(40) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.18, 2.65])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.35], t(40) = 11.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.46, 9.01], t(40) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.80, 95% CI [-6.00, 0.40], t(40) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.81, 95% CI [-1.08, 8.69], t(40) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.82])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(40) = 20.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.42, 0.01], t(40) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.36e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-1.03, 4.22], t(40) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.88])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(40) = 21.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.55], t(40) = -1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-5.72, -1.01], t(40) = -2.80, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.87, 95% CI [1.28, 8.47], t(40) = 2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.23, 1.54])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.62], t(40) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.62], t(40) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.95])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 6.09], t(40) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-8.34e-03, 0.88])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-5.55, 3.83], t(40) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.55])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.89, 12.95], t(40) = 14.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.97], t(40) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-2.55, 4.77], t(40) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-3.63, 7.39], t(40) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.16])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.27, 18.10], t(40) = 12.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(40) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [-1.39, 8.16], t(40) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.48, 95% CI [-11.74, 2.78], t(40) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.51])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.21) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.98, 25.29], t(40) = 16.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.84, 4.57], t(40) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-4.31, 7.80], t(40) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-11.36, 6.95], t(40) = -0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.22])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.98, 19.33], t(40) = 15.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 3.18], t(40) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.13], t(40) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-5.55, -5.66e-03], t(40) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.21, -1.23e-03])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.23], t(40) = 18.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.00], t(40) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.76], t(40) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.92])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.63], t(40) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(40) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.57], t(40) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.17], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(40) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 3.41], t(40) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.96, 2.43], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.75])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.03, 2.15], t(40) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.66])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.28, 32.41], t(40) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.14], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.52], t(40) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.72, 2.72], t(40) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.26, 30.74], t(40) = 10.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.01, 7.21], t(40) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.52, 95% CI [1.85, 7.19], t(40) = 3.32, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.87, 95% CI [-2.21, 5.94], t(40) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.59])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.25, 16.59], t(40) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(40) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.53, 95% CI [0.91, 4.16], t(40) = 3.07, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.20, 0.89])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-4.44, 0.50], t(40) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.11])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.98, 18.29], t(40) = 19.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.88], t(40) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.92], t(40) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.83])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.17, 2.63], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.74])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(40) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(40) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.78, 5.25], t(40) = 3.97, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.24, 0.69])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.68, 95% CI [-5.33, -0.03], t(40) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, -4.27e-03])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.20) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.35], t(40) = 49.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.27], t(40) = -1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.39], t(40) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.62], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.44])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.34, 17.24], t(40) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.41], t(40) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.84, 3.78], t(40) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.22])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(40) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(40) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.32], t(40) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.05], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.28])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(40) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(40) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.57], t(40) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-5.86, 4.48], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.72])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.82, 22.66], t(40) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.62, 1.74], t(40) = -0.68, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.03], t(40) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.75], t(40) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.44])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(40) = 23.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.90, 1.58], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.43, 1.57], t(40) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.59])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.29], t(40) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.98])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.70, 13.51], t(40) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.77, 0.16], t(40) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.49], t(40) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-2.74, 4.98], t(40) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.61])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.89, 11.80], t(40) = 9.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.42, 2.04], t(40) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.57], t(40) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -8.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.81], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.42])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.29, 12.34], t(40) = 9.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.20, 1.47], t(40) = -0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.17], t(40) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.72, 2.55], t(40) = -0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.57])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.72, 9.44], t(40) = 7.98, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.32], t(40) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.49, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.24], t(40) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-8.10, 0.27], t(40) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.07])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.27, 33.20], t(40) = 9.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.96, 6.29], t(40) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.60], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.55])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-11.59, 3.52], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.29])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	147.794	153.280	-70.897	141.794
recovery_stage_a	random	6	151.538	162.510	-69.769	139.538	2.256	3	0.521
recovery_stage_b	null	3	216.700	222.186	-105.350	210.700
recovery_stage_b	random	6	219.795	230.767	-103.898	207.795	2.905	3	0.407
ras_confidence	null	3	259.423	264.909	-126.712	253.423
ras_confidence	random	6	264.988	275.960	-126.494	252.988	0.435	3	0.933
ras_willingness	null	3	192.138	197.624	-93.069	186.138
ras_willingness	random	6	195.422	206.394	-91.711	183.422	2.716	3	0.438
ras_goal	null	3	221.322	226.808	-107.661	215.322
ras_goal	random	6	226.890	237.861	-107.445	214.890	0.433	3	0.933
ras_reliance	null	3	228.803	234.289	-111.401	222.803
ras_reliance	random	6	233.418	244.389	-110.709	221.418	1.385	3	0.709
ras_domination	null	3	218.623	224.109	-106.311	212.623
ras_domination	random	6	216.721	227.693	-102.361	204.721	7.902	3	0.048
symptom	null	3	337.922	343.407	-165.961	331.922
symptom	random	6	339.748	350.720	-163.874	327.748	4.173	3	0.243
slof_work	null	3	270.848	276.334	-132.424	264.848
slof_work	random	6	272.139	283.111	-130.070	260.139	4.709	3	0.194
slof_relationship	null	3	287.206	292.692	-140.603	281.206
slof_relationship	random	6	285.398	296.370	-136.699	273.398	7.809	3	0.050
satisfaction	null	3	305.947	311.433	-149.974	299.947
satisfaction	random	6	305.757	316.729	-146.879	293.757	6.190	3	0.103
mhc_emotional	null	3	247.175	252.661	-120.587	241.175
mhc_emotional	random	6	251.102	262.074	-119.551	239.102	2.072	3	0.558
mhc_social	null	3	287.950	293.436	-140.975	281.950
mhc_social	random	6	290.996	301.968	-139.498	278.996	2.954	3	0.399
mhc_psychological	null	3	295.871	301.357	-144.936	289.871
mhc_psychological	random	6	301.383	312.355	-144.692	289.383	0.488	3	0.922
resilisnce	null	3	268.401	273.887	-131.200	262.401
resilisnce	random	6	269.595	280.567	-128.798	257.595	4.805	3	0.187
social_provision	null	3	227.419	232.905	-110.710	221.419
social_provision	random	6	231.920	242.892	-109.960	219.920	1.500	3	0.682
els_value_living	null	3	217.365	222.851	-105.683	211.365
els_value_living	random	6	222.374	233.346	-105.187	210.374	0.992	3	0.803
els_life_fulfill	null	3	235.947	241.433	-114.974	229.947
els_life_fulfill	random	6	239.588	250.559	-113.794	227.588	2.360	3	0.501
els	null	3	279.567	285.053	-136.784	273.567
els	random	6	284.671	295.643	-136.335	272.671	0.896	3	0.826
social_connect	null	3	340.962	346.448	-167.481	334.962
social_connect	random	6	335.795	346.767	-161.897	323.795	11.167	3	0.011
shs_agency	null	3	269.697	275.183	-131.848	263.697
shs_agency	random	6	267.768	278.740	-127.884	255.768	7.929	3	0.048
shs_pathway	null	3	244.945	250.431	-119.473	238.945
shs_pathway	random	6	248.900	259.872	-118.450	236.900	2.045	3	0.563
shs	null	3	311.552	317.038	-152.776	305.552
shs	random	6	306.978	317.950	-147.489	294.978	10.574	3	0.014
esteem	null	3	145.932	151.418	-69.966	139.932
esteem	random	6	149.755	160.727	-68.878	137.755	2.176	3	0.537
mlq_search	null	3	234.846	240.332	-114.423	228.846
mlq_search	random	6	240.194	251.166	-114.097	228.194	0.652	3	0.885
mlq_presence	null	3	249.716	255.202	-121.858	243.716
mlq_presence	random	6	250.879	261.851	-119.440	238.879	4.836	3	0.184
mlq	null	3	296.150	301.636	-145.075	290.150
mlq	random	6	300.607	311.579	-144.304	288.607	1.543	3	0.672
empower	null	3	253.054	258.540	-123.527	247.054
empower	random	6	256.810	267.782	-122.405	244.810	2.244	3	0.523
ismi_resistance	null	3	225.279	230.765	-109.640	219.279
ismi_resistance	random	6	230.397	241.369	-109.198	218.397	0.882	3	0.830
ismi_discrimation	null	3	237.840	243.326	-115.920	231.840
ismi_discrimation	random	6	240.067	251.039	-114.034	228.067	3.773	3	0.287
sss_affective	null	3	254.524	260.010	-124.262	248.524
sss_affective	random	6	259.668	270.640	-123.834	247.668	0.856	3	0.836
sss_behavior	null	3	259.441	264.927	-126.721	253.441
sss_behavior	random	6	263.502	274.474	-125.751	251.502	1.939	3	0.585
sss_cognitive	null	3	261.532	267.018	-127.766	255.532
sss_cognitive	random	6	263.143	274.115	-125.571	251.143	4.389	3	0.222
sss	null	3	350.911	356.397	-172.455	344.911
sss	random	6	355.514	366.486	-171.757	343.514	1.396	3	0.706

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	19	3.58 ± 1.21		20	3.50 ± 1.21		0.839	0.112
recovery_stage_a	2nd	4	3.72 ± 1.03	-0.202	3	4.22 ± 1.02	-1.030	0.531	-0.715
recovery_stage_b	1st	19	18.53 ± 2.75		20	18.30 ± 2.75		0.799	0.259
recovery_stage_b	2nd	4	17.93 ± 1.67	0.687	3	19.17 ± 1.56	-0.996	0.322	-1.425
ras_confidence	1st	19	31.00 ± 4.45		20	31.55 ± 4.45		0.702	-0.358
ras_confidence	2nd	4	30.81 ± 2.81	0.124	3	32.16 ± 2.64	-0.398	0.522	-0.879
ras_willingness	1st	19	12.53 ± 2.02		20	12.15 ± 2.02		0.565	0.429
ras_willingness	2nd	4	11.68 ± 1.44	0.968	3	11.89 ± 1.38	0.292	0.843	-0.247
ras_goal	1st	19	18.11 ± 2.98		20	17.75 ± 2.98		0.712	0.381
ras_goal	2nd	4	17.80 ± 1.80	0.331	3	17.91 ± 1.67	-0.166	0.935	-0.117
ras_reliance	1st	19	13.42 ± 3.24		20	13.50 ± 3.24		0.940	-0.085
ras_reliance	2nd	4	13.45 ± 1.89	-0.029	3	14.29 ± 1.74	-0.853	0.548	-0.910
ras_domination	1st	19	11.11 ± 2.41		20	9.45 ± 2.41		0.038	1.026
ras_domination	2nd	4	9.26 ± 2.27	1.146	3	11.14 ± 2.26	-1.049	0.291	-1.170
symptom	1st	19	28.53 ± 10.73		20	30.80 ± 10.73		0.512	-0.976
symptom	2nd	4	25.73 ± 5.73	1.200	3	31.81 ± 5.15	-0.434	0.150	-2.610
slof_work	1st	19	24.05 ± 5.04		20	22.45 ± 5.04		0.327	1.277
slof_work	2nd	4	22.35 ± 2.80	1.360	3	22.34 ± 2.55	0.090	0.996	0.007
slof_relationship	1st	19	27.84 ± 5.65		20	25.85 ± 5.65		0.278	1.150
slof_relationship	2nd	4	24.47 ± 3.38	1.944	3	27.35 ± 3.14	-0.868	0.258	-1.662
satisfaction	1st	19	20.47 ± 6.99		20	22.70 ± 6.99		0.327	-0.983
satisfaction	2nd	4	23.49 ± 4.28	-1.331	3	24.85 ± 4.00	-0.951	0.670	-0.602
mhc_emotional	1st	19	11.42 ± 3.41		20	12.25 ± 3.41		0.452	-0.246
mhc_emotional	2nd	4	12.53 ± 3.91	-0.329	3	15.24 ± 3.94	-0.887	0.372	-0.804
mhc_social	1st	19	15.68 ± 5.36		20	14.85 ± 5.36		0.630	0.216
mhc_social	2nd	4	19.07 ± 5.30	-0.876	3	13.75 ± 5.30	0.283	0.206	1.375
mhc_psychological	1st	19	22.63 ± 5.90		20	23.50 ± 5.90		0.648	-0.164
mhc_psychological	2nd	4	24.37 ± 6.60	-0.329	3	23.04 ± 6.66	0.088	0.794	0.253
resilisnce	1st	19	17.16 ± 4.83		20	17.30 ± 4.83		0.927	-0.107
resilisnce	2nd	4	17.47 ± 2.77	-0.236	3	14.84 ± 2.55	1.852	0.205	1.981
social_provision	1st	19	13.79 ± 3.21		20	13.70 ± 3.21		0.931	0.102
social_provision	2nd	4	13.59 ± 1.84	0.226	3	14.44 ± 1.69	-0.844	0.533	-0.968
els_value_living	1st	19	17.26 ± 3.05		20	17.50 ± 3.05		0.810	-0.404
els_value_living	2nd	4	17.03 ± 1.58	0.396	3	17.21 ± 1.41	0.495	0.876	-0.305
els_life_fulfill	1st	19	12.58 ± 3.33		20	13.90 ± 3.33		0.224	-1.049
els_life_fulfill	2nd	4	13.32 ± 2.20	-0.587	3	14.20 ± 2.08	-0.238	0.595	-0.701
els	1st	19	29.84 ± 5.71		20	31.40 ± 5.71		0.400	-1.009
els	2nd	4	30.25 ± 3.26	-0.264	3	31.31 ± 2.99	0.061	0.660	-0.684
social_connect	1st	19	26.00 ± 10.53		20	26.60 ± 10.53		0.860	-0.309
social_connect	2nd	4	30.52 ± 5.41	-2.332	3	32.99 ± 4.80	-3.294	0.528	-1.272
shs_agency	1st	19	14.42 ± 4.82		20	14.50 ± 4.82		0.959	-0.067
shs_agency	2nd	4	16.96 ± 2.66	-2.142	3	15.06 ± 2.42	-0.477	0.335	1.598
shs_pathway	1st	19	16.63 ± 3.68		20	17.20 ± 3.68		0.632	-0.402
shs_pathway	2nd	4	17.65 ± 2.44	-0.720	3	17.95 ± 2.32	-0.528	0.872	-0.210
shs	1st	19	31.05 ± 7.86		20	31.70 ± 7.86		0.799	-0.515
shs	2nd	4	34.57 ± 3.94	-2.796	3	32.54 ± 3.46	-0.665	0.473	1.617
esteem	1st	19	12.84 ± 1.14		20	12.40 ± 1.14		0.231	0.426
esteem	2nd	4	13.06 ± 1.28	-0.207	3	12.45 ± 1.29	-0.053	0.544	0.580
mlq_search	1st	19	15.79 ± 3.22		20	15.25 ± 3.22		0.604	0.326
mlq_search	2nd	4	16.03 ± 2.53	-0.145	3	15.96 ± 2.47	-0.428	0.971	0.042
mlq_presence	1st	19	14.79 ± 3.94		20	13.05 ± 3.94		0.177	1.604
mlq_presence	2nd	4	14.63 ± 2.26	0.146	3	11.68 ± 2.08	1.261	0.086	2.719
mlq	1st	19	30.58 ± 6.43		20	28.30 ± 6.43		0.276	0.903
mlq	2nd	4	30.76 ± 4.32	-0.071	3	27.79 ± 4.12	0.201	0.369	1.176
empower	1st	19	20.74 ± 4.27		20	19.80 ± 4.27		0.498	0.883
empower	2nd	4	20.31 ± 2.37	0.398	3	18.92 ± 2.15	0.834	0.422	1.319
ismi_resistance	1st	19	15.16 ± 2.78		20	15.00 ± 2.78		0.860	0.078
ismi_resistance	2nd	4	14.23 ± 2.77	0.458	3	15.56 ± 2.77	-0.276	0.536	-0.657
ismi_discrimation	1st	19	12.11 ± 3.13		20	10.30 ± 3.13		0.080	0.904
ismi_discrimation	2nd	4	11.06 ± 2.85	0.522	3	10.38 ± 2.82	-0.038	0.755	0.344
sss_affective	1st	19	9.84 ± 4.35		20	9.15 ± 4.35		0.622	0.587
sss_affective	2nd	4	9.81 ± 2.48	0.031	3	8.46 ± 2.28	0.583	0.465	1.139
sss_behavior	1st	19	10.32 ± 4.51		20	8.95 ± 4.51		0.351	1.080
sss_behavior	2nd	4	9.76 ± 2.61	0.441	3	8.31 ± 2.40	0.509	0.453	1.147
sss_cognitive	1st	19	7.58 ± 4.14		20	8.30 ± 4.14		0.590	-0.345
sss_cognitive	2nd	4	10.07 ± 3.22	-1.191	3	6.88 ± 3.14	0.681	0.209	1.527
sss	1st	19	27.74 ± 12.15		20	26.40 ± 12.15		0.733	0.368
sss	2nd	4	29.39 ± 7.20	-0.454	3	24.02 ± 6.67	0.656	0.319	1.478

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(38.95) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.70)

2st

t(13.89) = 0.64, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.18)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(37.53) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)

2st

t(20.46) = 1.01, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -1.42, 95% CI (-1.31 to 3.81)

ras_confidence

1st

t(37.63) = 0.39, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.44)

2st

t(18.50) = 0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.99 to 5.69)

ras_willingness

1st

t(38.03) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)

2st

t(14.94) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.50)

ras_goal

1st

t(37.51) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)

2st

t(20.83) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.86)

ras_reliance

1st

t(37.42) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.18)

2st

t(23.47) = 0.61, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.69)

ras_domination

1st

t(39.66) = -2.14, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.09)

2st

t(15.36) = 1.09, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.78 to 5.56)

symptom

1st

t(37.24) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-4.69 to 9.24)

2st

t(32.30) = 1.47, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -2.61, 95% CI (-2.32 to 14.48)

slof_work

1st

t(37.32) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)

2st

t(27.74) = -0.00, p = 0.996, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.67)

2st

t(21.36) = 1.16, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -1.66, 95% CI (-2.27 to 8.03)

satisfaction

1st

t(37.55) = 0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-2.31 to 6.76)

2st

t(19.98) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-5.21 to 7.93)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(41.99) = 0.76, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.03)

2st

t(41.80) = 0.90, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-3.35 to 8.77)

mhc_social

1st

t(40.12) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.64)

2st

t(17.12) = -1.31, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 1.37, 95% CI (-13.85 to 3.22)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(41.62) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.69)

2st

t(31.98) = -0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-11.66 to 8.98)

resilisnce

1st

t(37.39) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.99 to 3.28)

2st

t(24.51) = -1.30, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 1.98, 95% CI (-6.80 to 1.54)

social_provision

1st

t(37.38) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)

2st

t(24.87) = 0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.60)

els_value_living

1st

t(37.19) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)

2st

t(36.04) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.12 to 2.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(37.76) = 1.24, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.48)

2st

t(16.81) = 0.54, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.32)

els

1st

t(37.38) = 0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.26)

2st

t(25.05) = 0.45, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.94)

social_connect

1st

t(37.17) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.24 to 7.44)

2st

t(37.20) = 0.64, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-5.38 to 10.31)

shs_agency

1st

t(37.31) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.21)

2st

t(28.19) = -0.98, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-5.84 to 2.06)

shs_pathway

1st

t(37.79) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.95)

2st

t(16.55) = 0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.54 to 4.13)

shs

1st

t(37.13) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)

2st

t(40.06) = -0.73, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-7.70 to 3.63)

esteem

1st

t(41.73) = -1.22, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.29)

2st

t(34.38) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(38.49) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.55)

2st

t(13.80) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.03)

mlq_presence

1st

t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)

2st

t(24.52) = -1.79, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 2.72, 95% CI (-6.35 to 0.45)

mlq

1st

t(37.83) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)

2st

t(16.23) = -0.92, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-9.77 to 3.83)

empower

1st

t(37.32) = -0.68, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-3.71 to 1.83)

2st

t(27.80) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 1.32, 95% CI (-4.92 to 2.12)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(40.24) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.95 to 1.64)

2st

t(17.67) = 0.63, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-3.12 to 5.79)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(39.40) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.22)

2st

t(14.65) = -0.32, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.94)

sss_affective

1st

t(37.38) = -0.50, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.13)

2st

t(24.95) = -0.74, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-5.07 to 2.38)

sss_behavior

1st

t(37.41) = -0.95, p = 0.351, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-4.29 to 1.56)

2st

t(23.92) = -0.76, p = 0.453, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.38 to 2.48)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(38.43) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.40)

2st

t(13.86) = -1.32, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-8.40 to 2.01)

sss

1st

t(37.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-9.22 to 6.55)

2st

t(22.04) = -1.02, p = 0.319, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-16.30 to 5.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = 1.28, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.05)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.49) = 1.22, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.66)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.59) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 3.73)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(6.03) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.49)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.06)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.38) = 1.05, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.68)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.75) = 1.31, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.63)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.21) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-3.81 to 5.84)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.45) = 1.07, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.04)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.51) = 1.17, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.77)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(30.92) = 1.25, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-1.90 to 7.87)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(10.00) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.93 to 5.74)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(19.51) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-8.77 to 7.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = -2.27, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 1.85, 95% CI (-5.19 to 0.27)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 1.04, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.53)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.16) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.93)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.73) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.84)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.27 to 3.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = 4.04, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -3.29, 95% CI (2.36 to 10.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.76) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.10 to 3.59)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.11) = 0.81, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.46)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(21.31) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.66)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 3.92)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = -1.55, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 1.26, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.86)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.80) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-5.57 to 4.56)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -1.02, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.07 to 1.30)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(10.36) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.13)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.17) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-3.61 to 3.76)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.72, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.37) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.24 to 1.95)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.54) = -0.84, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.49 to 2.64)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.43) = -0.80, p = 0.909, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-9.82 to 5.05)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.10) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.30)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.45) = -0.97, p = 0.743, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.95)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.55) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(5.94) = -1.38, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-2.36 to 0.66)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.44) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.34)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.67)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.35) = -1.65, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-4.41 to 0.71)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.20) = -1.70, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-6.98 to 1.39)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = -1.93, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-3.95 to 0.54)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.42) = -2.75, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-6.44 to -0.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.47) = 1.89, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (-0.99 to 7.02)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(26.34) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-3.20 to 5.42)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(9.42) = 1.27, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.59 to 9.36)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(17.15) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.57 to 9.05)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.68)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.82)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.67) = 0.83, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.16)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.14) = 3.30, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -2.33, 95% CI (1.03 to 8.01)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = 3.03, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -2.14, 95% CI (0.42 to 4.65)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.70) = 1.02, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.49)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.10) = 3.96, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -2.80, 95% CI (1.25 to 5.79)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(18.57) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.63)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.48) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.55 to 3.03)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.09 to 1.77)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.74) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 4.58)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.48)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(9.72) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.19)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(7.84) = -0.75, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.26 to 2.17)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.07)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.34) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.81 to 1.69)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.40) = 1.70, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-1.05 to 6.03)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.39) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-4.80 to 8.10)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance